Concern has been raised recently about the integrity of the USDA organic label. Non-organic additives have been allowed in USDA organic labeled products, and consumer groups and Congress are concerned. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) explains, “It will unravel everything we’ve done if the standards can no longer be trusted. If we don’t protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight.” The Obama administration has pledged to “protect the label”, but under the Bush administration several directives weakened organic standards.
The Washington Post describes some of the non-organic additives that are allowed under the weakened USDA organic label:
Grated organic cheese, for example, contains wood starch to prevent clumping. Organic beer can be made from non-organic hops. Organic mock duck contains a synthetic ingredient that gives it an authentic, stringy texture.
How did these additives enter the organic market? As large food corporations have bought up smaller organic labels, lobbyists have pressured the USDA. Repeatedly, the Bush administration caved into demands to weaken organic standards.
- The National Organic Program’s (NOP) director Barbara Robinson “overruled staff who had determined that omega-3 DHA and ARA oils should not be approved in organic production” of infant formula.
- Instead of decreasing the number of non-organic additives, as intended by the original law, “That list has grown from 77 to 245 substances since it was created in 2002.”
- “Optional” pesticide testing has never been implemented.
- Antibiotic use is allowed in organic dairy cows “with zero input from the public or the National Organic Standards Board“. Antibiotics can be used on sickly cows, whose milk still qualifies as organic if 12 months have passed since the antibiotic use.
- Cattle ranchers can feed cows non-organic fish meal that may contain PCBs, mercury, and preservatives and still qualify the meat as organic.
- A legal directive was issued allowing “some synthetic pesticides on organic farms“.
- Organic certification was limited to just livestock and crops, while ignoring the development of organic standards for “fish, nutritional supplements, pet food, fertilizers, cosmetics, and personal-care products.”
- Director Robinson “opted not to issue standards spelling out how organic food must be grown, treated or produced,” and she failed to act on 65 recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board.
- “Access to pasture” was not clarified or interpreted allowing organic dairy farmers to use feedlots.
Several of these directives were rescinded by Bush’s agriculture secretary Ann Veneman, but concern over the weakened organic label has not gone away. The Cornucopia Institute’s senior farm policy analyst Mark A. Kastel explains:
The stewardship of the organic program at the USDA has been an absolute abomination. It was not just management by neglect—it was an intentional monkeywrenching of the Department’s oversight of the industry…The Washington Post investigative story is a scathing indictment of the National Organic Program’s current director, Barbara Robinson. The example of her overruling professional staff at the NOP, by allowing synthetic, gimmicky additives to be included in organic baby food, after a phone call from a powerful Washington lobbyist, is absolutely reprehensible.
President Lincoln called the US Department of Agriculture the “People’s Department“. Hopefully Obama’s secretary Vilsack will restore the integrity of the USDA organic label.
More from GLI:
The Organic Trade Association (OTA) would like correct to several inaccuracies that appear in this article.
First, the federal organic standards have not been “relaxed.” Rigorously enforced standards can and do go hand-in-hand with the growth the organic industry has experienced. The industry and OTA have long pushed for national organic regulations that consumers can rely on. As a result, organic agriculture and products remain the most strictly regulated, as well as the fastest growing, food system in the United States today.
Second, the approved use of a very limited number of non-organic natural and synthetic materials has always been recognized as being important in order to allow consumers organic choices for everyday products. This is why the Final Rule for USDA’s National Organic Program provided for 54 synthetic materials to be allowed in crop production; 31 synthetics to be allowed in livestock production, and 41 synthetics to be allowed in organic processing (along with 27 non-synthetic, non-agricultural materials such as baking soda).
Since 2002, only two additional synthetics have been allowed in crop production; seven additional synthetics have been allowed for livestock production, and eight additional synthetics have been allowed for use in organic processing. Moreover, one material has been removed, and one material was recommended for removal at the last National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting on May 6, 2009 for a net gain of 15 new synthetic materials and 13 new non-organic natural materials approved for use since 2002.
Third, important work is being done to develop standards for emerging sectors of the organic industry. In Fall 2008, NOSB developed a recommendation on aquaculture and pet food standards. Similarly, in May 2009 NOSB took up the issue of personal care standards and committed to developing a recommendation, which it will present at its Fall 2009 meeting. The development of a rule around organic ruminants’ access to pasture is also well underway.
Finally, OTA would like to encourage a sense of optimism around the future of organic. Thanks to the support of the Obama administration, which has advocated for greater human and financial resources for the National Organic Program, this future looks bright. Such resources will help to ensure that organic continues to be the gold standard of eco-labels, and that it remains a symbol of integrity in which consumers can trust.
spoken like a true brown nose, money seeking republican.
This is an important topic. We can certainly hope that the current Administration will get back on track with organic labeling and encourage an increase in the safety of the overall food supply.
It would also be tremendous if there was a chance to remove the copyrighting of life forms including seeds. That abomination is also harming small farmers and locking us into unsafe soybeans, corn, and soon rice and other items.
Organic Trade makes the point that not so many additional synthetics have been allowed after 2002 — however the Bush administration, which was not friendly to organic standards, did not begin in 2002. They weakened the standards more in the earlier years of their time in power. Using 2002 as some sort of benchmark seems to be an attempt to misdirect away from the fact that the standards have been weakened.
What is needed is to restore the standards to the higher levels that existed before the Bush administration.
Whoops, my mistake on the dates … I had thought the original law was enacted in mid-2001.
Still, the larger point is that the law was created to set standards and work in the direction of improving them, not to water them down, and some of that has occurred since.
There are many reasons why it is important to keep these standards high and the consumer’s confidence in them high. One is the consumer’s right to know what his food contains. Another is the fact that having many people eat organic is valuable for the society … being healthier, it decreases national health care costs. A third reason is that the organic industry is growing very quickly and it makes no sense to jeopardize a rapidly growing area of business. All of these benefits are threatened if the consumer loses confidence in the organic standards.
As an advocate for child safety, I realize that many mothers are taking extra precautions when it comes to making a safer sleep environment for their babies. Yes, I agree that we need to raise the bar for organic standards and maintain it at that level. This is what many consumers are looking to for the future and the industry needs to fulfill that market to the best of their ability and not cut corners.